On 5/20/21 12:52 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 20:41, Alex G. <mr.nuke...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/19/21 4:55 PM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Alex,
On Wed, 19 May 2021 at 11:44, Alex G <mr.nuke...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 5/19/21 11:36 AM, Simon Glass wrote:
Hi Alexandru,
On Mon, 17 May 2021 at 10:38, Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke...@gmail.com> wrote:
From: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
We already have a host Kconfig for SHA1. Use CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SHA1)
directly in the code shared with the host build, so we can drop the
unnecessary indirection.
Signed-off-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org>
Reviewed-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke...@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Alexandru Gagniuc <mr.nuke...@gmail.com>
---
common/image-fit.c | 2 +-
include/image.h | 8 --------
2 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/common/image-fit.c b/common/image-fit.c
index e614643fe3..24e92a8e92 100644
--- a/common/image-fit.c
+++ b/common/image-fit.c
@@ -1218,7 +1218,7 @@ int calculate_hash(const void *data, int data_len, const
char *algo,
CHUNKSZ_CRC32);
*((uint32_t *)value) = cpu_to_uimage(*((uint32_t *)value));
*value_len = 4;
- } else if (IMAGE_ENABLE_SHA1 && strcmp(algo, "sha1") == 0) {
+ } else if (CONFIG_IS_ENABLED(SHA1) && strcmp(algo, "sha1") == 0) {
This can only work if the my host Kconfig patch comes first. Otherwise
this code will just be skipped on the host.
I was scratching my head too as to why this works in practice, but not
in theory. There is a #define CONFIG_SHA1 in image.h.
Although not a perfect fix, we go from two ways to enable SHA1 ("#define
IMAGE_ENABLE_SHA1", and "#define CONFIG_SHA1"), to just one. That's why
I think this change is an improvement, and part of this series.
No, we really should not do that...everything needs to be in Kconfig.
I agree for target code. But, as a long term solution, let's look at how
we can get hash algos in linker lists, like we're proposing to do for
crytpo algos. Or I could just drop this change in v2.
Would it not be easier to have a host Kconfig for these? You seem to
be going to extreme lengths to avoid it, but it seems like the
simplest solution, easy to understand, no effect on code size and
scalable to the future.
It's easy for the short term in terms if the goal is to get something
merged. It just hides more fundamental issues with the code. For
ecample, why is there hash_calculate() and clacultae_hash()
I was under the impression that we were agreed on the combination of
patches. I won't try to defend your patch from yourself. I'll drop the
hash changes from v2 if it helps get things moving along.
Alex
